Free will?

[KCDAD]

The problem here is that science and the philosophy of determinism predicts that someone will make the exact same choice if the circumstances are exactly the same.

This is one of the reasons why the debate between determinism and indeterminism is difficult to end - it is pretty near to impossible to duplicate circumstances exactly.

Excellent point but not strong enough. One can argue it IS impossible to exactly duplicate any real world circumstances. Time, perception, experience, awareness... all these change from moment to moment.

 

[elman]

P1: God is omniscient
P2: God is infallible
P3: For freewill to be valid a person must be able to decide between at least two actions
P4: God knows before you choose what that choice will be
C1: Since God is infallible, him knowing means you can only choose that action
C2: Since, you can only "choose" one action, freewill is invalid QED

QUOTE]
If it is my choice, God knowing what I am going to chose does not make it a non choice.

 

[elman]

If God knows you'll marry Cindy, can you marry Sarah?

Yes you can marry Sarah if she will have you and if you do God will have known you would marry Sarah and He would never have known you were going to marry Cindy.

 

[quatona]

Yes you can marry Sarah if she will have you and if you do God will have known you would marry Sarah and He would never have known you were going to marry Cindy.

This answer ignores the premise of the question: "If God knows you are going to marry Cindy...".
Please try again.

 

[quatona]

If it is my choice, God knowing what I am going to chose does not make it a non choice.

Except that it wasn´t a choice in the first place.

 

[elman]

This answer ignores the premise of the question: "If God knows you are going to marry Cindy...".
Please try again.

No I will not try again. The premise is faulty. God does not know ahead of time what He is going to force you to do. What He knows ahead of time is what you are going to chose to do. God will only know your are going to marry Cindy if Cindy is who you are going to chose.

 

[elman]

Except that it wasn´t a choice in the first place.

That is the premise that it is a choice. You are ignoring the priemise. Try again.

 

[quatona]

No I will not try again. The premise is faulty. God does not know ahead of time what He is going to force you to do.

Which nobody has claimed.

What He knows ahead of time is what you are going to chose to do. God will only know your are going to marry Cindy if Cindy is who you are going to chose.

The tenses used in this sentence point to the problem.

 

[quatona]

That is the premise that it is a choice. You are ignoring the priemise. Try again.

Sure, if the premise is that it is a choice, the conclusion sure will be that it is a choice. Is that how you propose to make logical deductions?

 

[elman]

=quatona]

Which nobody has claimed.

If we don't have a choice because of God then you are claiming God forced you to do whatever.

The tenses used in this sentence point to the problem

An unintelligable response.

 

[elman]

Sure, if the premise is that it is a choice, the conclusion sure will be that it is a choice. Is that how you propose to make logical deductions?

That is how your propose to make a logical deduction. You started this type argument.

 

[quatona]

=quatona]
If we don't have a choice because of God then you are claiming God forced you to do whatever.

This is either a non-sequitur or you forgot to mention some of the logical steps that are necessary to arrive at this conclusion.

Btw., I haven´t claimed that we have no choice "because of God", but that God´s foreknowledge indicates that we have no choice.
But I am afraid, that even if I told you that a million times, you would still keep adressing this notion you would rather adress instead of the one I hold.
Goodbye, elman!

 

[quatona]

That is how your propose to make a logical deduction. You started this type argument.

I never started the discussion whether we have choice with the premise that we don´t have choice.

 

[KCDAD]

I have no choice because God knows the future
God knows the future so I have no choice
Because God knows the future I must not have any choice
Because whatever I choose God already knew it so either I really didn't have a choice or he knew what I would choose
At the moment I make a choice, the future changes, but since God is already in the changed future the moment it changes he knows what choice I was going to make
Blah blah blah

or in the alternative: I can choose and God has no clue as to what my choice is until I make it... and neither do I.

 

[TheDag]

I don't believe God is restrained by time. All these arguments seem to presume God is restricted by time.

 

[Nightson]

If it is my choice, God knowing what I am going to chose does not make it a non choice.

In order to refute a piece of deductive logic, you must show one of the premises to be faulty or show how the conclusions do not follow from the premises. As you did neither, the logic stands.

 

[Nightson]

I don't believe God is restrained by time. All these arguments seem to presume God is restricted by time.

I don't see God being restrained by time in this:

P1: God is omniscient
P2: God is infallible
P3: For freewill to be valid a person must be able to decide between at least two actions
P4: Because God is omniscient, he knows before you choose what that choice will be
C1: Since God is infallible, him knowing means you can only choose that action
C2: Since, you can only "choose" one action, freewill is invalid QED


If you're referring to the word before in premise four, it is dealing with our own chronological limitations, it places no restriction on God.

 

[KCDAD]

I don't see God being restrained by time in this:

P1: God is omniscient Omniscient doesn't mean what you think it does... so this fails...
P2: God is infallible Infallible doesn't mean what you think it does .. so this premise fails also...
P3: For freewill to be valid a person must be able to decide between at least two actionsFreewill could be valid if there were two inactions to choose as well, and would those actions be mutually exclusive?
P4: Because God is omniscient, he knows before you choose what that choice will be BY definition this is wrong because choice involves a decsion, one that has not been made and therefore can not be known
C1: Since God is infallible, him knowing means you can only choose that action Irrelevant
C2: Since, you can only "choose" one action, freewill is invalid QED Again, action is irrelevant, however, why must the choices be mutually exclusive?


If you're referring to the word before in premise four, it is dealing with our own chronological limitations, it places no restriction on God.

That would be another premise you have to add to your argument... right?

 

[Mortensen]

I dont know if this has been brought up here (havent read the whole post) but Ill try to make my point. It conserns humans ability to choose, but not nessisarry about free will.

Ill take Adam and Eve as an example to humans who lived in a invirement that were untouched by other humans and animals, a pure god-made envirement.

God created Adam and Eve and their invirement. Even before the earth were created, he knew that his first humans would make a sin, go against him. He knows why they will sin (they choose to do it. They evaluate the situation, takes Gods warning into the evaluation, but still they think its the best at that point to choose to sin (eating an apple or so)). Even if he know they will make a sin, because of their invirement and how their brain is constructed (its his construction), he waits untill they make a sin and then blames them for it. Its like playing with himselves. He knows what inpackt the invirement he made for them, will have on them and he knows the outcome of Adam and Eves evalutations, but still he lets it be and blames them for sinning. The choose to sin only because their mind (that god made) is constructed that way.

 

[Nightson]

That would be another premise you have to add to your argument... right?

P1 & P2: Both refer to the orthodox definition of these words, if you don't use the orthodox version, then the rest of it doesn't apply and belief in free will is logically consistent with the rest of your beliefs.

P3: Two inactions? I'm not sure what you mean by that, for the purposes of the premise, doing nothing counts as an action.

P4: Well, I'm not sure that's in the dictionary, but the main problem is that our language assumes free will, thus talking about a world without free will is difficult, I mean, what's the word for a choice that isn't really a choice but seems like a choice?

C1: Irrelevent for you, not for the followers of orthodoxy in this area.

C2: I'm afraid I don't get what you mean here.